SubwayGuy Posted September 20, 2014 Share #26 Posted September 20, 2014 If Rogers Junction had been built to handle the capacity it sees, it would look something like this: -Southbound 1 and 2 tracks would both split to the right just past Franklin Ave. station. Flatbush trains would take the turnout from either track, each of which could hold one maximum length train (10 cars fits with 2 car lengths extra) on these tracks, which merge north of President St. The tracks that don't branch off continue on the upper level into Nostrand Ave. -Northbound leaving President St., the tracks split immediately with the connection to the northbound local forking left and joining 4 track, and a track dipping under everything to the right that eventually merges in with 3 track for the express. This would eliminate all merging delays caused by 5 service to Brooklyn. At this point, it's all academic though since you can't close the junction to completely rebuild it in this manner. However, even if you could do all that, it wouldn't help Flatbush's capacity. The only way to alleviate that would be to either extend the line to a proper terminal with a middle platform, and lots of space between the stop position and any bumping blocks, or to modify the existing terminal in some way so that the blocks were further back and the trains could enter faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bstar1 Posted September 20, 2014 Share #27 Posted September 20, 2014 There's really no way to make better delays mostly happen when 5 is in Brooklyn crossing tracks between Franklin Av and President St hold up tra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted September 20, 2014 Share #28 Posted September 20, 2014 But thats the problem. You dont want passengers to be forced to transfer at Franklin, Atlantic or even Borough Hall. Thats why its set up that way. If it is, then there is no real good way around this problem UNLESS you consider having the and BOTH go to New Lots and split the with half the trains to Utica Avenue (with some trains as warranted also going to New Lots) and the other half to Flatbush Avenue rush hours to cut down on the (5)'s problem at Rogers. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted September 20, 2014 Share #29 Posted September 20, 2014 Why? If Flatbush can't handle the combined frequencies of the and , what makes you think New Lots can handle the combined frequencies of the and ? Running the to New Lots 24/7 is just as problematic as some of the other proposals (including my previous one) because: 1) It would have to merge with the at Utica. 2) You'd be running a flood of trains on the New Lots branch for literary no reason. Ridership doesn't warrant it. Loading guidelines or not, there's no need for it, speaking as a daily / rider all my life. 3) Even with the 14 tph on the and 9 tph on the during the rush, you would have to end up short turning some trains at Utica or be taken out of service at New Lots and sent to the yard east of the station. And splitting the to both Utica and Flatbush? Similar to the ? Really? That would potentially overcrowd the as more people want east side service from both Brooklyn IRT branches as I've been saying all along in this thread. And even if you send some trains to New Lots, that puts even more congestion at the said terminal. Again, you're spreading the issue from one area to another in the Brooklyn IRT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bstar1 Posted September 20, 2014 Share #30 Posted September 20, 2014 Trains behind on weekends when 5 doesn't go to Brooklyn there's no delays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted September 20, 2014 Share #31 Posted September 20, 2014 Yeah, with the & each running 5 trains per hour along their entire routes, and the running 8 trains per hour on its entire route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quill Depot Posted September 20, 2014 Share #32 Posted September 20, 2014 It will definitely remove delays but there goes the one seat ride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bstar1 Posted September 20, 2014 Share #33 Posted September 20, 2014 5 that goes to Utica Av eventually they go to yard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted September 20, 2014 Share #34 Posted September 20, 2014 I never understood why the Rogers Ave Junction was built as such that instead of a true flying junction they have some of the switches at grade. That forces trains in the express trains eastbound to Utica to be held on a red signal while local trains cross at grade on the express tracks to Flatbush on the eastbound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsunflyguy Posted September 20, 2014 Share #35 Posted September 20, 2014 Seems like 1964 would have been a great time to do some digging and rebuild Roger Jct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted September 20, 2014 Share #36 Posted September 20, 2014 5 that goes to Utica Av eventually they go to yard Not true. Only some. There are many scheduled trips that relay at Utica and go back north. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted September 20, 2014 Share #37 Posted September 20, 2014 It seems that there are no longer any scheduled trains that go to the New Lots branch like before. Nowdays, a few (like SubwayGuy mention) drop out of service at Utica and run lite straight into the Livonia yard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted September 20, 2014 Share #38 Posted September 20, 2014 Seems like 1964 would have been a great time to do some digging and rebuild Roger Jct. Thats a thought, but the Nostrand Avenue Line became very busy shortly after its opening and thereafter. To me it looks like mission impossible since the work will force long terms reroutes, disruption in underground service and street traffic for a long time until its finished. It would have been interesting to see how it would have actually be planned on paper, but I dont know of any diagrams reflecting a study at least on the reconstruction of that junction. They could have extended the Nostrand Ave line past Flatbush though as proposed here which I guess could have at least helped with faster turnarounds: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted September 20, 2014 Share #39 Posted September 20, 2014 I never understood why the Rogers Ave Junction was built as such that instead of a true flying junction they have some of the switches at grade. $$$. Wasn't this one of the earliest Dual Contracts expansions? This was before the subway caught the over-engineering flu (although it would've really helped in this case). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted September 21, 2014 Share #40 Posted September 21, 2014 $$$. Wasn't this one of the earliest Dual Contracts expansions? This was before the subway caught the over-engineering flu (although it would've really helped in this case). Well not really, I believe the stations along this line with the Rogers Avenue Junction opened in 1920. As for the overengineered sections, well keep in mind that the BMT 4th Avenue Line with Dekalb Avenue, and 59th Street, was opened in 1915 (99 years ago), with provisions for the IRT at Dekalb and the Staten Island tunnel at 59th Street. I believe the Bay Ridge Line opened later after the original BRT Sea Beach line was activated at around that same time for passenger service (The BMT West End Line came later). Did they do that to save money in regards to the shitty way Rogers Ave junction was built? I believe it could be because of acquisition rights which was a problem back then (The junction fell on private property and they had to work with what they got. But thats just my silly little theory.). So you could be right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.